Lancet journal retracts letter on coronavirus because authors say it “was not a first-hand account” after all

The Lancet Global Health has swiftly retracted a letter to the editor purportedly describing the experience of nurses treating coronavirus in Wuhan, China, just two days after it was published, because the authors are now saying it “was not a first-hand account.”

In the original letter, the authors write:

The conditions and environment here in Wuhan are more difficult and extreme than we could ever have imagined.

They continue:

In addition to the physical exhaustion, we are also suffering psychologically. While we are professional nurses, we are also human. Like everyone else, we feel helplessness, anxiety, and fear. Experienced nurses occasionally find the time to comfort colleagues and try to relieve our anxiety. But even experienced nurses may also cry, possibly because we do not know how long we need to stay here and we are the highest-risk group for COVID-19 infection.

Here’s the retraction notice:

On Feb 26, 2020, we were informed by the authors of this Correspondence1 that the account described therein was not a first-hand account, as the authors had claimed, and that they wished to withdraw the piece. We have therefore taken the decision to retract this Correspondence.

We’ve asked the corresponding author what prompted the walkback, but they have yet to respond. Sixth Tone reports that

the emergency medical team dispatched from Guangdong to Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, issued a statement Wednesday saying the two authors, who claimed to be among the first medics from the southern province to arrive at the front lines, were never part of the team and the information in the article is false.

We asked The Lancet what happened. According to a spokesperson:

Questions regarding the validity of this correspondence were brought to our attention by a number of readers. In addition, we received a direct communication from the authors of this correspondence on 26 February, 2020, stating that the account they described was not first-hand, as they had originally claimed in the correspondence, and that they wished to withdraw the piece. Following due process according to the COPE retraction guidelines, we determined that it was our duty to retract this correspondence.

We have published this retraction in line with the COPE retraction guidelines, publishing both the retraction notice and the original correspondence clearly marked as retracted:

— The retraction notice can be accessed here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30076-0/fulltext

— The retracted correspondence can be accessed here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30065-6/fulltext

Every piece of original research published across The Lancet Group is subject to peer-review. However, we also publish a range of additional content, including correspondence, which is not. In these instances, we take the perspectives provided by authors on trust.

Concern over rapid publication

The retraction comes amid a growing conversation about the effects of rapid publication of information during an outbreak. Last week, for example, Reuters published a graphic showing how many preprints and peer-reviewed papers had been posted since the start of the current outbreak. In a piece accompanying that graphic, Lancet editor in chief Richard Horton is quoted as saying:

Some of the material that’s been put out – on pre-print servers for example – clearly has been… unhelpful.

That is certainly true, but as we noted in STAT earlier this month, one problematic preprint was swiftly retracted before any significant news coverage. It was only after scrutiny by news outlets that The New England Journal of Medicine quietly corrected a letter to the editor. And now The Lancet has retracted a letter, suggesting, to paraphrase Horton, that some of the material that’s been put out — in peer-reviewed journals, for example — clearly has been, well, we’re not sure, exactly.

Authors may know that letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are likely not peer reviewed, but the general public has no idea. Perhaps journals should do a better job of noting that. In the meantime, partisans may argue for one venue over another, but it seems the issue may be a rush to publication — which might be better, all things considered, in a time of crisis — than whether it’s in a preprint server or an august peer-reviewed journal.

Hat tip: Eli Perencevich

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.